V7sus - I
Adam Bravo
defining note over the dominant chord in a V - I is the V's 3rd, but the
V7sus doesn't have that. Does that make it a IV/V - I plagal cadence?
Joey Goldstein
Depends on who you talk to. It's somewhat ambiguous. For my money it's subdominant.
Dominant function can be actuated by the presence of 2 or more of scale
degrees 5, 7 and 2 in a chord. This is why the V triad also has dominant
function, not just V7. Scale degree 4 creates a tritone with the leading
tone (S7) the presence of which further enhances the dominant function
and the effectiveness of the dominant cadence.
Subdominant function is actuated by the presence of 2 or more of scale
degrees 4 6 and 1 in a chord.
Tonic function is actuated by the presence of 2 or more of scale degrees
1 3 and 5 in a chord as well as by the absence of scale degree 4.
Some chords overlap these boundaries.
V7sus4 has S5, S2 and S4 together hinting at dominant function but it
also has S4 and S1 together hinting at subdominant function. The only
thing you can say it is not is a tonic function chord because of the
presence of S4. Even V13sus4 which contains the entire tonic triad (S1,
S3 and S5) does have not tonic function because of the presence of S4.
I think I remember that at Berklee when V7sus4 proceeds to an
unambiguously tonic function chord it was to be analysed as having
dominant function. If it proceeded to an unambiguously dominant function
chord it was analysed as having subdominant function. If it proceeds to
an unambiguously subdominant function chord I'm not sure what the proper
analysis was deemed to be, but it was probably dominant just to show
some delineation between the two chords.
--
Joey Goldstein
Guitarist/Jazz Recording Artist/Teacher
Home Page: http://www.joeygoldstein.com
Email: <joegold AT sympatico DOT ca>
Patrick L.
Adam Bravo <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eWed9.44052$Ic7.3...@news2.west.cox.net...
It really doesn't have to be complex. For example
In the key of C, think of the Dominant sus chord as ii Chord with
the V root in the bass:
Dmi7/G which is the same thing, basically as a G9sus, or G7sus if
you want to simplify it.
When I see a dominant Sus - tonic cadence, It is harmonically just a
basic ii V 1 (or IV V 1, same thing, in my way of thinking).
Don't worry about the fact that a Sus chord doesn't have a third.
Patrick L.
Dan Adler
> defining note over the dominant chord in a V - I is the V's 3rd, but the
> V7sus doesn't have that. Does that make it a IV/V - I plagal cadence?
In the Aebersold "Major Minor" volume, they use this cadence as
backing for you to practice a major scale over - so if there ever was
a place where you could just mindlessly play a major scale - it's
this; because Aebersold says so :)
Pat
>
> In the key of C, think of the Dominant sus chord as ii Chord with
> the V root in the bass:
>
> Dmi7/G which is the same thing, basically as a G9sus, or G7sus if
> you want to simplify it.
Something that might tend to confuse someone would be your saying that
the Dmi7/G and the G9sus are the same.
Even if the two chords have the same notes and may be fingered the
same,
They are not the same. One is a Dmi chord and the other is a G chord.
I don't think you would see both of the mentioned chord names
(Dmi7/G-G9sus) in the same notation.
Thus one chord is in a different key than the other.
Every chord could have several names but to name them properly you
would have to determine the key in which it is played.
Also in most jazz situations the G chord would not be called an sus
chord.
It would be written as G11(no 3rd).
Pat
Joey Goldstein
Pat wrote:
>
> "> It really doesn't have to be complex. For example
> >
> > In the key of C, think of the Dominant sus chord as ii Chord with
> > the V root in the bass:
> >
> > Dmi7/G which is the same thing, basically as a G9sus, or G7sus if
> > you want to simplify it.
>
> Something that might tend to confuse someone would be your saying that
> the Dmi7/G and the G9sus are the same.
Both chord symbols suggest a chord with the same tones and the same note
in the bass. They both suggest slightly different voicings of those
tones though, if taken literally.
Dm7/G implies
G D F A C (bottom to top)
G9sus4 implies
G C D F A
But since the voicing that a musician plays when he sees a chord symbol
is up to him, not the composer or arranger or the copyist (that's why
they call it improvising and faking), both chord symbols might be
interpreted in numerous identical voicings including the two detailed
above. So they are essentially the same sound. And more importantly they
both have the same potential to fulfill the same harmonic function, i.e.
they are pretty much interchangeable.
I tend to think of Dm7/G as being a suggested voicing for G9sus4, a
voicing in which the subunit, Dm7, is an important feature, important to
the arranger at least.
> Even if the two chords have the same notes and may be fingered the
> same,
> They are not the same. One is a Dmi chord and the other is a G chord.
> I don't think you would see both of the mentioned chord names
> (Dmi7/G-G9sus) in the same notation.
Generally you're right. But a writer who generally uses the G9sus4
notation might use the Dmin7/G notation if he had a series of various
min7 chords sounding over a G pedal tone or if he really wanted to
suggest that some of his G9sus4 chords be voiced with a clear Dm7 sound
on top.
> Thus one chord is in a different key than the other.
I don't know where you got this idea. At this point, out of any harmonic
context, key has nothing to do with this discussion at all. And the most
common occurence of both of these sounds, namely Dm7/G and G9sus4 is as
V9sus4 in the key of C. Even if you think of the former as being IIm7/V
you're still in the same key.
> Every chord could have several names but to name them properly you
> would have to determine the key in which it is played.
That's not really 100% true with chord symbols. Chord symbols are meant
to be read, not analysed. They should be easy to read. I've always
thought that they should make sense harmonically too but this is
sometimes not the prime concern of a copyist. For instance, towards the
end of all The Things You Are is the progression:
Cm7 |Bdim |Bbm7 |Eb7 |Ab
That is the way it is usually written. But that Bdim7 chord is really
functioning as bIIIdim7 in this key. It would be more correct from the
standpoint of an harmonic analysis to notate it as Cbdim7. But it is
easier to read it as Bdim7. Since this is a chord chart intended to be
read, not analysed, in this case Bdim7 usually wins.
> Also in most jazz situations the G chord would not be called an sus
> chord.
> It would be written as G11(no 3rd).
I don't know who you've been hanging out with but I've never had to read
the chord symbol G11(no 3rd) and if I was asked to I would have serious
doubts about the arranger or the copyist's experience level.
The only time I've ever seen notation anything like that is in a
classical harmony course when they introduce the general notion of
"chords of the eleventh", and for them a G11 chord does include the maj
3rd. In a classical harmonic analysis there are no chord symbols per se,
but they do have chord labels, and there is no dom7sus4 label available.
The sus4 is seen as a melodic decoration, a suspension, of the 3rd of a
dom7 chord. So what we call dom7sus4 would labeled as a dom7 chord,
usually just V7, and the melodic suspension, the sus4, would be labeled
elsewhere as part of the melodic analysis. I suppose that in a classical
harmonic analysis the label, dom11(no 3rd), is possible though. But on a
jazz chord chart we do have the dom7sus4 and the dom9sus4 and the
dom7sus4(9) chord symbols available so that's what we use, in my experience.
> Pat
Patrick L.
Pat <pea...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3b3a917.02090...@posting.google.com...
> "> It really doesn't have to be complex. For example
> >
> > In the key of C, think of the Dominant sus chord as ii Chord
with
> > the V root in the bass:
> >
> > Dmi7/G which is the same thing, basically as a G9sus, or G7sus
if
> > you want to simplify it.
>
>
> Something that might tend to confuse someone would be your saying
that
> the Dmi7/G and the G9sus are the same.
>
> Even if the two chords have the same notes and may be fingered the
> same,
> They are not the same. One is a Dmi chord and the other is a G
chord.
I might be willing to accept that if can you provide me with the name
of a standard in which Dm7/G is used in a Dm context instead of a G
dominant sus context. Off hand, I just can't think of one, though I
may not be trying very hard :) This is not to say that only
standards, not more sophisticated and lesser known works of jazz
composers, are the only definitive medium for criteria, but because
I'm a standards person mostly, that is the window through which I
musically view the world. Yes, there is subjectivity on this, of
course.
But here's my problem with your statement, when I play a Dm7/G it
sounds like a dominant sus chord, not a minor chord
Also, on slash chords in general, not all of them are defined by the
chord on the left side, some are defined by the bass, such as Dm7/G
or Fma7/G (G9sus and G13sus, respectively) whereas Dm/C is a Dm
chord, C/G is a C chord
As a composer, I use the Dm7/G, for example, instead of G9sus as my
why of trying to steer the pianist or guitarist into using a more
specific voicing that a G9sus, which leaves more room or
interpretation. However, that point may as well be moot since jazz
people tend to do their own thing, anyway.
Patrick L.
Benjamin Ash
whole idea of the suspension is to make the chord more tense, but in terms
of plain theory, a suspension does not alter the basic harmonic role of the
chord.... V7 - I, V7sus - I, V7sus2 - I all are dominant-tonic.
"Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eWed9.44052$Ic7.3...@news2.west.cox.net...
Pat
> Generally you're right. But a writer who generally uses the G9sus4
> notation might use the Dmin7/G notation if he had a series of various
> min7 chords sounding over a G pedal tone or if he really wanted to
> suggest that some of his G9sus4 chords be voiced with a clear Dm7 sound
> on top.
I love it when you straighten me out Joey.
I need it.
My musical education is mixed.
Some classical, some jazz, some country, rock, blues.
I have learned from people who are totally uneducated in theory and
from some who completely lose me.
The combination of my theroy knowledge is far from correct.
I have always followed your posts and I have your on-line book on my
computer.
There was even a time when I thought that Silverman was very
knowledgable in music theory. That was a while back though.
You are the finest on-line educator I have encountered and I highly
respect everything you say. Even though some of it is WAY over my
head.
Thanks.
Pat
Joey Goldstein
Thanks Pat. I appreciate it. I really do.
But let's not get all teary eyed now. .... Be a man! <g>
Doc
other. The same with the 1,3,6. And any combinations of the 2-4-5-7 will
resolve to any combination of the 1,3,6. The only note in the Ionian scale
that controls the entire key is the 4. The 2-4-5-7 all have 4s in them and
the 1-3-6 don't. In a 2-5-1 you have two chords that have 4s in them (the 2
and 5) and one that doesn't the 1. The primary thing that you hear is the 4
note either coming in or going out. Ex. Bmi7b5 (B,D,*F*,A)-FMaj7
(*F*,A,C,E)-Dm7 (D,*F*,A,C)/ G7 (G,B,D,*F*)/ CMaj7 (C,E,G,B-*no F*) or the
sub for the CMaj7 - Ami7 (A,C,E,G- *no F*) or the sub for the CMaj7 - Emi7
(E,G,B,D-*no F*) If you look at the notes in these chords you will see that
the Bmi7b5, Fmaj7, Dmi7,and G7 all have Fs and the CMaj7 ,Ami7, and Emi7 do
not have Fs. Is what you hear is the F note resolving to the E note in all
these chords except in the FMaj7 that has an E in it already. However in
this chord it looses the root. --
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
"Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:eWed9.44052$Ic7.3...@news2.west.cox.net...
Mike C.
I'm totally floored when I see you leap a tall building in a single bound.
I've been reading your online book and have found the cure for cancer in it.
Even though it was WAY over his head, I've been informed that Einstein
looked up to you.
Just joshing the both of you.
Your knowledge and clarity is certainly very impressive and a breath of
fresh air here on the usenet.
Sorry about the cliché...
:-)
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D76B3BC...@nowhere.net...
Joey Goldstein
C |F G |C
?????
Most traditional theories, that I am aware of, would say that the G
chord has "dominant function" and that the C chord has quite a different
function, namely "tonic function". And neither of these chords have an
F. Do you see the movement from G to C here as being to identical sounds
as far as harmonic function is concerned?
These theories also say that F and G have different harmonic functions
with the F being deemed as having "subdominant function".
Why do you think this is?
Are all these guys wrong?
--
Joey Goldstein
"Mike C." wrote:
>
> Joey,
>
> I'm totally floored when I see you leap a tall building in a single bound.
> I've been reading your online book and have found the cure for cancer in it.
> Even though it was WAY over his head, I've been informed that Einstein
> looked up to you.
>
> Just joshing the both of you.
>
> Your knowledge and clarity is certainly very impressive and a breath of
> fresh air here on the usenet.
>
> Sorry about the cliché...
>
> :-)
It's easier to come up with a zinger of a reply to the guys who just
hate me. <g>
Benjamin Ash
a simple question that has been lost in the whole mix.
Is a V7sus - I progression considered dominant-tonic? I know that the
defining note over the dominant chord in a V - I is the V's 3rd, but the
V7sus doesn't have that. Does that make it a IV/V - I plagal cadence?
Lets do it in a way that should settle all of this.
In the Key of C
V7 is G,B,D,F
the tonic is C,E,G
Here we go. Suspension makes G,B,D,F ---- G,*C*,D,F
Invert it any way you want there is NO third defining tone C,G,D,F -- to
make it plagal.
In terms of if the cadence is authentic, NO... But the root progression is
G---C
Therefore it is most imperfect as a cadence,but to everyones ears, it will
be the simple V7-I..... I guess the only thing that this discussion has
produced is to always resolve your suspensions.....
Love ya all, thanks for the good question.....
Benjamin
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D76E7F0...@nowhere.net...
Joey Goldstein
Benjamin Ash wrote:
>
> Man is anybody else confused by all of these hy "pathetic" al reasonings for
> a simple question that has been lost in the whole mix.
Talk about calling the kettle black.
> Is a V7sus - I progression considered dominant-tonic? I know that the
> defining note over the dominant chord in a V - I is the V's 3rd,
That's not true. Lots of dominant function chords have that note, S7
btw, missing. I use G7b9(no 3rd) all the time in V I cadences in C
major. Is that chord a subdominant function chord now because there is
no B in it?
> but the
> V7sus doesn't have that. Does that make it a IV/V - I plagal cadence?
>
> Lets do it in a way that should settle all of this.
>
> In the Key of C
>
> V7 is G,B,D,F
>
> the tonic is C,E,G
>
> Here we go. Suspension makes G,B,D,F ---- G,*C*,D,F
>
> Invert it any way you want there is NO third defining tone C,G,D,F -- to
> make it plagal.
????? So now the presence of S7 is the defining note for a subdominant
function chord? "Pathetic" is right. Maybe that was just a typo. And
that voicing, C G D F, sure sounds pretty plagal to me when it resolves
to a root position C chord. Maybe that's what you're saying that V7sus4
is always plagal? It's hard to tell from the way you write what you
actually mean.
But not all voicings of the tones G C D F have the same functional root
nor do they have the same acoustical root. Having G in the bass though
presents a real strong likelihood that it is both the functional root as
well as the acoustical root which will imbue the chord progression with
more of a dominant > tonic feeling than any other inversion of the
V7sus4. I think you allude to this very point in your own comments about
the root motion below.
Dominant function, subdominant function and tonic function all have
their own defining criteria but these criteria are not always etched in
stone. The movement from dominant to tonic is a *feeling* and in some
cases many of the defining tones of the dominant chord might be missing.
My example of G7b9(no 3rd) still holds true.
> In terms of if the cadence is authentic, NO...
> But the root progression is
> G---C
> Therefore it is most imperfect as a cadence,but to everyones ears, it will
> be the simple V7-I.....
Well now it appears like you are saying V7sus4 has dominant function.
What ARE you saying?
> I guess the only thing that this discussion has
> produced is to always resolve your suspensions.....
So you still haven't answered the question and you've introduced a bunch
of misinformation of your own.
> Love ya all, thanks for the good question.....
Yeah. Thanks for stopping by.
Benjamin Ash
talking bad about another poster. I wasn't attacking any of you personally
by saying "pathetic", rather you lack of ability to answer a single question
.
PS.... Your book online.... Great..... really man.... excellent.......
But since you have attacked me personally, allow me to elaborate on the
topic at hand....
This is where i would like to start.....
Is a V7sus - I progression considered dominant-tonic? I know that the
> > defining note over the dominant chord in a V - I is the V's 3rd,
>
> That's not true. Lots of dominant function chords have that note, S7
> btw, missing. I use G7b9(no 3rd) all the time in V I cadences in C
> major. Is that chord a subdominant function chord now because there is
> no B in it?
Yes... If you bothered to read farther or even my first post, I was
attempting to state your exact words.... That the 3rd is important, but is
not essential to the usage of the chord...... Look at the previous
question.
Adam Bravo" <mra...@cox.net> wrote in message
Does that make it a IV/V - I plagal cadence?
What I was illustrating was that Just because the third is not there, does
NOT change the usage of the chord....
Invert it any way you want there is NO third defining tone C,G,D,F -- to
> >"make it plagal"
What I was saying was that a chord built in thirds C E G B D F would be an
even further stretch to explain harmonically as a sub-dominant than by just
stating the obvious, that even though the third is not represented in the
Dominant Chord, it does not mean that the chord does not serve its dominant
function.
The "Pathetic" things that I was talking about was that none of you other
posters were even bothering to answer the D*mn question.... It was fun to
watch you all argue such a moot point that could be settled all the way back
to Bach, but I'm guessing that since you went to Berklee, you understand
that..... Good for you
Dominant function, subdominant function and tonic function all have
> their own defining criteria but these criteria are not always etched in
> stone. The movement from dominant to tonic is a *feeling* and in some
> cases many of the defining tones of the dominant chord might be missing
I agree totally, you are preaching to the choir of the converted here....
it is a feeling of Dominant pull.... The I and V scale tone of the Dominant
(G,D in my example above), pull the ears back to (C,G)....
> So you still haven't answered the question and you've introduced a bunch
> of misinformation of your own
It should just be considered a Dominant - Tonic with a suspension.... The
whole idea of the suspension is to make the chord more tense, but in terms
of plain theory, a suspension does not alter the basic harmonic role of the
chord.... V7 - I, V7sus - I, V7sus2 - I all are dominant-tonic.
Yes, this was my first post, the one you seemed to miss... If this didn't
answer the question, I am sorry that a Berklee school of music person is
unable to understand Theory 1....
Nothing against any graduate of Berklee. It is a fine school and I used the
Modern method for Guitar when I first learned to play.... It is an amazing
school worth going to, but posters like you who insist on making things way
harder than they need be should go back to your hypothetical worlds and let
people who can articulate to the average musician write without your little
snide comments....
If you are looking for my credentials, just understand that when I left
college, I exited in the 98th percentile in music theory out of over 50,000
other music students..... But I must say that I didn't write a bible of
guitar information like you did....
P.S. Did I tell you that I think it's Great..... Really man...... Great.
Sorry to interupt your boys club here. Joey, keep on writing. I look
forward to reading more of what you have to say... And like I said, I do
agree with you, I just wish that you could say it in 50 words or less next
time...
You are trying to answer a completely different question...
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D779082...@nowhere.net...
Doc
call a G chord a dominant it has an F in it and there is nothing we can do
about that. If we are going to call the G chord a triad then we don't know
if it's Dom or Major. If the G chord is in the key of C then it's Dom and it
will resolve to the CMaj7, the Ami7 or the Emi7 and like I said in all cases
you hear the F note resolving to the E. These are the elementary functions
of a diatonic Ionian scale. Every chord in a key has 4 primary notes. Most
books that I have seen call it this way. Ex Ionian scale C,D,E,F.G.A,B break
down to CMaj7, Dmi7, Emi7, FMaj7, G7, Ami7, Bmi7b5. If other books or
theories don't agree with this then I guess they are wrong
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D76E7F0...@nowhere.net...
Joey Goldstein
Benjamin Ash wrote:
>
> Joey... One would wish that you would do some ummm..... research before
> talking bad about another poster. I wasn't attacking any of you personally
> by saying "pathetic", rather you lack of ability to answer a single question
> .
I have answered the question, several times now. Most recently in my
response to Doc's comments, to which you replied, making the dismissive
comment that all of my comments were "hy-pathetic-al", to which I took
issue. If you did not think that I would take issue with a comment like
that, well, guess what, you're wrong again. If you're going to start a
fire you better be willing to take the heat, friend.
I explain my stuff in easy to understand language that is fairly self
consistent or at least I try to. My posts are long because I like to try
to close all logical loopholes and keep my ideas consistent. I'm sorry
if you have trouble keeping your attention steady as you read them. Try
ritalin. When I read your stuff, even though you "exited in the 98th
percentile in music theory out of over 50,000 other music students" you
don't make any sense. Sorry guy.
And by the way, I never graduated from Berklee. I'm a 7 semester drop
out so you've got way more "credentials" than me. So how come your posts
don't make sense and you're complaining about me?
You are wrong that I did not read your 1st post. I did. I just did not
associate those comments with the same ill phrased, dismissive nonsense
to which I just replied. I figured they were from different people. The
name Benjamin Ash did not stick in my memory, sorry. It will now.
BTW I'm glad you cleared up your your ideas about the 3rd of the
dominant chord being the defining note in a plagal cadence. And I'm a
hard read? Geez.
Joey Goldstein
Doc wrote:
>
> If were going to talk triads then it's another ball game. If your going to
> call a G chord a dominant it has an F
Approximately 500 years of classical music disagrees with you.
> in it and there is nothing we can do
> about that.
Doc, you are speaking for yourself here and I guess that's OK. Maybe
you've never been to a formal music school or through a formal harmony
course but triads are the basis of ALL tonal music including the jazz
repertoire. The terms you are bandying about so loosely like "dominant",
"subdominant" and "tonic" were invented by guys who were analysing
triadic music.
But there are people here who might think that what you are saying is
the generally accepted norm, and it isn't, even if there is valididy to
some of the things you say. I like the idea thatthe presence of scale
degree 4 in a chord is of some central significance, just not the
significance that you give to it.
> If we are going to call the G chord a triad then we don't know
> if it's Dom or Major.
I'm sorry but you're wrong here. In the key of C major the G major triad
has ALWAYS had dominant function.
> If the G chord is in the key of C then it's Dom and it
> will resolve to the CMaj7, the Ami7 or the Emi7 and like I said in all cases
> you hear the F note resolving to the E.
What F? There is no F in a G major triad.
And haven't you ever seen a G7 chord go to Fmaj7 or Dm7 or Bm7b5? A G7
chord can go anywhere. So can a G triad. But in a tonal composition they
have an expectation that they will proceed to I. They don't "have" to do anything.
Why are you only using 7th chords? Do you not understand that 7th chords
like these have only become popular fairly recently and that they are
merely exctentions of the harmonic functions of the triads at their base?
> These are the elementary functions
> of a diatonic Ionian scale.
The Ionian scale is a mode of the diatonic scale which is a scale that
has 7 possible modes. The Ionian scale became known as the "major scale"
in the capacity that it relates to the classical notion of major/minor
key based tonality. Modal music, in the Ionian mode, does not use
extended chord progression or it would not be "modal" anymore. It would
be tonal.
> Every chord in a key has 4 primary notes.
What DO you have against triads?
> Most
> books that I have seen call it this way.
Then keep looking.
> Ex Ionian scale C,D,E,F.G.A,B break
> down to CMaj7, Dmi7, Emi7, FMaj7, G7, Ami7, Bmi7b5. If other books or
> theories don't agree with this then I guess they are wrong
Oy.
Adam Bravo
> > Is a V7sus - I progression considered dominant-tonic? I know that the
> > defining note over the dominant chord in a V - I is the V's 3rd,
>
> That's not true. Lots of dominant function chords have that note, S7
> btw, missing. I use G7b9(no 3rd) all the time in V I cadences in C
> major. Is that chord a subdominant function chord now because there is
> no B in it?
Ummm... That's what I said, not what he said. He copied my original post
verbatim into his.
This hasn't really helped me at all with my question, though it's made for
some interesting reading. Everybody seems to be divided anyway, so I guess
from now on I'll just remember to treat it as a V7sus-I progression. It's
not plagal, and it's not dominant. It may not be theoretically correct, but
that's the way it seems to sound to me.
Joey Goldstein
I'm curious as to what you mean by "treat it". Up till now I thought we
were talking about how you would analyse it within an harmonic analysis
regarding the labeling of harmonic function. And my answer was that it
is an ambiguous progression that can really be looked at either as
subdominant or dominant. [Actually, whether I would label it one way or
the other would be dependant on melody and voicing.]
If you're asking about how you play over it well that's a whole
different slant. But the ambiguous analysis can help point the way.
"Treat"
G7sus4 C |
essentially the same way you would treat
G7 C |
or
Dm7 C |
or
Fmaj7 C |
or
F G C |
or
G F C |
or any movement from dominant to tonic or subdominant to to or any
combination of the two.
The attraction of the V7sus4 chord over the regular V7 is that is is
free-er because of its ambiguity. There are less restrictions
melodically speaking.
Consider this:
On G7 the tone C doesn't fit so well (when played above the main body of
the chord) because it creates a b9 with the B down in the chord.
But on G7sus4 the C is a chord tone and is itself down in the main body
of the chord. So if B is sounded above the chord it creates a maj 7th
interval with the C and tends to blend right in as T10.
So this means that on G7sus4 using the C major scale there are no avoid notes.
If you allow for altered tensions then there are really only 2 avoid
notes, F# and Db, and the rest of the 10 notes in the 12 tone scale are
fair game. Of course there are ten notes available on a normal G7 chord
too with the only avoid notes being F# and C. But if you're "treating"
the G7sus4 chord ambiguously you might get a Db in there somewhere too
like if you're thinking about Db7 as a sub V7. Then you can start
looking at ways to use F# also like how it is situated in the Db
mixolydian scale as Gb.
Just thinking out loud here.
Doc
good as it gets. Guys like Dave Leibman, Linc Chamberland, John Stowell, our
own Jimmy B and a host of others great players don't look at Jazz harmony
from theory that is 500 years old. Things have changed. All the classical
theory thing from a Jazz stand point is going out the window because of
players like these. Their harmonic ideas are way above what most people can
achieve. What I posted in my original post in this thread was precise and
right on the money. All I did was explain some of the primary functions of
an Ionian scale and you went into a triad thing which have nothing to do
with what I said. If you want to talk triads then lets go who knows maybe
you will learn something.
--
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D77E86F...@nowhere.net...
Adam Bravo
> > This hasn't really helped me at all with my question, though it's made
for
> > some interesting reading. Everybody seems to be divided anyway, so I
guess
> > from now on I'll just remember to treat it as a V7sus-I progression.
It's
> > not plagal, and it's not dominant. It may not be theoretically correct,
but
> > that's the way it seems to sound to me.
>
> I'm curious as to what you mean by "treat it". Up till now I thought we
> were talking about how you would analyse it within an harmonic analysis
> regarding the labeling of harmonic function. And my answer was that it
> is an ambiguous progression that can really be looked at either as
> subdominant or dominant. [Actually, whether I would label it one way or
> the other would be dependant on melody and voicing.]
I mean talk about it by "treat it."
Joey Goldstein
Doc wrote:
>
> Well Joey the guys that I learned harmony theory from were, and are about as
> good as it gets. Guys like Dave Leibman, Linc Chamberland, John Stowell, our
> own Jimmy B and a host of others great players don't look at Jazz harmony
> from theory that is 500 years old. Things have changed. All the classical
> theory thing from a Jazz stand point is going out the window because of
> players like these.
If you say so. It would be interesting to hear what those guys have to
say about your interpretation of the things they tried to teach you. I
think there might be a little bit of broken telephone syndrome going on.
> Their harmonic ideas are way above what most people can
> achieve. What I posted in my original post in this thread was precise and
> right on the money. All I did was explain some of the primary functions of
> an Ionian scale and you went into a triad thing which have nothing to do
> with what I said.
The discussion of triads seemed important because you were making claims
about harmonic function that are just plain wrong. Maybe you've got
different definitions about what these terms mean but the ones I am
using are well understood and have been for a few hundred years now.
> If you want to talk triads then lets go who knows maybe
> you will learn something.
I was talking about dominant function because that's what the thread is
about. You see no difference between subdominant function chords and
dominant function chords. I understand what you are talking about. But
you need a new term because the roles of subdominant function chords and
dominant function chords in tonal music are well understood and while
they are similar, in that they are a harmonic area other than the tonic
area, they are also different from one another.
If you are going to use the terms of traditional theory you should know
the theory. If you're making up some other theory then say so.
What is it you would like to discuss about triads?
Doc
harmonies from a *Jazz* and realistic point of view. If you have a G triad
or any major triad 1-3-5 with no 7 we don't know if it's a major 7 or a
dom7. If we state it's in the key of C then it has a b7 in it whether we
like it or not. If the G triad is in the key of G or D then it has a 7 on
it. With the 500 year old way of thinking if they did not think or like
chords that have 7s in them that's fine, but in this day and age if we are
talking Jazz the 7s are in. I don't think there is a song that is in the
Real Book that does not use 7s in there chords. In this NG we are talking
about JAZZ not country music, classical, or polkas. Your statement "It would
be interesting to hear what those guys have to say about your interpretation
of the things they tried to teach you. I think there might be a little bit
not my interpretations they come from some of the most advanced Jazz players
out there today. Don't worry, believe me if you had the chance to talk to
Chamberland or hear him perform live you would think you got hit in the head
with a brick. His explanation of harmony theory will carry us for the next
50 years. I personally think the theory courses that are taught in most
music collages including Berklee are old and way out of date. I'ts no wonder
that most students that try to grasp the patched up bull shit they try to
teach fail or have to struggle through the classes. However things may be
changing. I have been contacted by a major music collage to do a seminar on
modern theory concepts. I'll let you know if it happens, maybe you can
attend.
--
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D781459...@nowhere.net...
Benjamin Ash
newsgroups.... It is better to have dialogue with the people in person.....
I would still call the V7sus a dominant chord just because it lies on the
dominant and the majority of the time it will resolve to the tonic.
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D77E293...@nowhere.net...
Joey Goldstein
Doc wrote:
>
> The point is that I'm not trying to invent a new theory I'm looking at music
> harmonies from a *Jazz* and realistic point of view. If you have a G triad
> or any major triad 1-3-5 with no 7 we don't know if it's a major 7 or a
> dom7. If we state it's in the key of C then it has a b7 in it whether we
> like it or not. If the G triad is in the key of G or D then it has a 7 on
> it. With the 500 year old way of thinking if they did not think or like
> chords that have 7s in them that's fine, but in this day and age if we are
> talking Jazz the 7s are in. I don't think there is a song that is in the
> Real Book that does not use 7s in there chords. In this NG we are talking
> about JAZZ not country music, classical, or polkas.
It's obvious to me that you have either never taken a traditional theory
course or if you have that you did not understand it or you could not be
making the claims that are making. The vast bulk of the jazz repertoire
is based on the classical system of major/minor key based tonality. You
don't seem to understand this simple point and/or what key based
tonality is.
Show me a standard tune that would fall apart harmonically if there were
no 7ths added to any of the chords.
> Your statement "It would
> be interesting to hear what those guys have to say about your interpretation
> of the things they tried to teach you. I think there might be a little bit
> of broken telephone syndrome going on" is way out there. First off these are
> not my interpretations they come from some of the most advanced Jazz players
> out there today. Don't worry, believe me if you had the chance to talk to
> Chamberland or hear him perform live you would think you got hit in the head
> with a brick. His explanation of harmony theory will carry us for the next
> 50 years.
Then show me HIS explanation of harmony not your own explanation of what
you think he said. BTW I really liked that LC sound clip you have at
your website. He played real good.
> I personally think the theory courses that are taught in most
> music collages including Berklee are old and way out of date.
The music theories taught in music colleges today are perfectly well
suited to describe the types of music that that they attempt to
describe. The people who design these courses are not dummies even
though you can't understand what they teach.
> I'ts no wonder
> that most students that try to grasp the patched up bull shit they try to
> teach fail or have to struggle through the classes.
Where do you get these statistics? When I was at Berklee most guys did
fine in their theory classes. Theory was the easy stuff. People tended
to drop out when they had to write out big band charts or practice 6
hours a day or rub elbows with thw whinos outside the dorm for 4 years.
> However things may be
> changing. I have been contacted by a major music collage to do a seminar on
> modern theory concepts. I'll let you know if it happens, maybe you can
> attend.
Well if the stuff you have posted at your web site is an example of the
things that you will be teaching, thanks, but I'll pass. I think I'd
rather stay home and read some of Albert Silverman's stuff.
Doc
traditional theory
> course or if you have that you did not understand it or you could not be
> making the claims that are making. The vast bulk of the jazz repertoire
> is based on the classical system of major/minor key based tonality. You
> don't seem to understand this simple point and/or what key based
> tonality is.
Why would I want to pay $80,000 to get a dose of the trash that they teach
at Berklee. I have three students there now and I know what they teach. Most
of it is based old ideas and not worth the money. Some of the ear training
stuff is ok.
> Show me a standard tune that would fall apart harmonically if there were
> no 7ths added to any of the chords.
We even leave out 5ths and roots so what. And we put in 6s 9s #5s and
anything else we can think of that is what Jazz is all about in my book.
> Then show me HIS (Linc Chamberlad's) explanation of harmony not your own
explanation of what
> you think he said.
Who the hell do you think I got all the theory from. It is hand written by
him and I posted it to the best of my ability
> Well if the stuff you have posted at your web site is an example of the
> things that you will be teaching, thanks, but I'll pass.
Whats the matter are you afraid you might learn something new? Joey get
real - I don't have time to argue with you when you have such a closed
minded approach to music.
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
Jurupari
>> Chamberland or hear him perform live you would think you got hit in the
>head
>> with a brick. His explanation of harmony theory will carry us for the next
>> 50 years.
>Then show me HIS explanation of harmony not your own explanation of what
>you think he said.
What he posted here is EXACTLY what Chamberlain said. I've had the tract for a
couple of years and that's verbatim. What's more, it's nothing new, just
properly, even elegantly organized for once.
If you look over your own endless sea of posts here, you'll find several over
the years where you were individually in agreement with every tenet laid out in
that post.
Incidentally, the G triad exists in a four note chordal system as more than one
identity. Over E it is an Emi7 and is a substitute for the tonic. With an
added F, it becomes a dominant. The difference is the presence or absence of F
QED. That isn't new or old, it's just there. Deal with it or don't.
How many standards do you actually play using three note chords? Doc was
talking about reality and jazz, but maybe that distinction was overlooked - I
know firsthand that you don't read replies too carefully.
I get the impression that you think you've already learned all there is to
know. Just how does a new idea come to you, and more importantly, when? I've
been reading you rehash the same old same old for almost three years now. If
you like Linc's playing open your mind as to how he does it. It'll give you
more to analyze and write about here.
Now that that's settled, I think I'll go see what the rest of the schoolyard
bullies are up to.
This newsgroup stopped being much of a source of information due to this type
of idle, and I think pointless pedantry at every conceiveable interface, but
it's also amazing to me how many players that should know better come here to
show their ass. Maybe it's just me, but I'm only used to that kind of attitude
in people who can't play 'dead'.
Now there's some new ones. It's missing something since I can't see these guys
in their purple tights with silver lightning bolts on their capes, though.
Maybe we can get Judge Judy to referee these theory and is/isn't God
eruptions, if she doesn't mind going intellectually slumming. Where's Jarl now
that everyone's lowered the bar?
Anybody want to start a newsgroup? We could talk about jazz guitar and theory
and....aw, forget it.
Thom_j.
of 'wellness' in your text" You made my day Clif, thank you!
cheers thom_j. :)
"Jurupari" wrote:
<snipped'ed'ed :) >
Benjamin Ash
Jesus Christ you are all correct...
To Doc, Realize before Your alienation of classical music theory that
Debussy and Ravel were doing 9th, 11th, 13th etc. chords before Mr
Chamberland was even thought about so please do not talk about classical
theory as being crap.
Realize that Bud Powell, Dexter Gordan, Lester Young all would cite the
music of Debussy and Ravel as influences.
As for Joey, I cant believe that everyone on this newsgroup hates you.
Jesus, I'm sorry I stumbled into a longer feud but understand that Jazz
theory and Classical Theory can be different instead of 6/3 chords jazzers
say C/G... It's all good and beneficial.
I do believe that there is knowledge to be gained from Mr. Cumberland, but
it can be explained in Classical Theory contexts also, so shake hands, agree
to disagree, and start talking about the important things in life like
Augmented 6th chords.
"Jurupari" <juru...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020906172446...@mb-mi.aol.com...
Joey Goldstein
Jurupari wrote:
>
> >believe me if you had the chance to talk to
> >> Chamberland or hear him perform live you would think you got hit in the
> >head
> >> with a brick. His explanation of harmony theory will carry us for the next
>
> >> 50 years.
>
> >Then show me HIS explanation of harmony not your own explanation of what
> >you think he said.
>
> What he posted here is EXACTLY what Chamberlain said.
What he (Doc) has posted at his website at this url:
http://www.trimcrafters.com/Theory.zip
is the stuff I am referring to. I'm not sure what you are referring to
when you say "what he posted here". The stuff in that zip file is filled
with misinformation and is just a completely disorganized mishmash of a
presentation of basically the standard chord-scale model that is taught
at Berklee and elsewhere
Misinformation like:
"The Harmonic Minor Scale is identical to the Ionian scale except it has
a #5 instead of a 5."
Sure that's a good desrciption of one of the modes of the harmonic minor
scale (the 3rd one, called Ionian Augmenetd by most people) but it IS
NOT a good description of the harmonic minor scale itself.
Nowhere in the text does he make this distinction really clear. But he
does goes on to name this very same scale, the one he just called
Harmonic Minor, as Ionian #5. And he does supply reasonable names for
the 6 other modes of this scale, with the 6th mode being labeled as,
guess what, Harmonic Minor. But he has not told you how his statement
"The Harmonic Minor Scale is identical to the Ionian scale except it has
a #5 instead of a 5" fits into all of this. If he wants to point out
that the 6th mode of the actual harmonic minor scale is a lot like the
major scale with a raised 5th then that's what he should say.
He makes up his own meanings to well understood terms all over the
place, just like Albert Silverman does.
"The Melodic Minor Scale
This scale is referred to as "The Jazz Scale" whatever that means. Books
also state that you play up it one way and down it another. What ever
you do with it, the arpeggios you can make with it are great. In reality
it’s just another scale. If you compare this with an Ionian scale, it’s
an Ionian #1. Ex.
Ionian Scale C-D-E*F-G-A-B*C(octave)
Melodic Minor Scale C#*D-E*F-G-A-B-C#(octave) (when playing up)
C#*D-E*F-G-Ab-B-C# (when playing down)"
Give me a break!
The writer of this material, whether it's doc or Linc I don't know,
constantly makes references to books that he clearly hasn't read and
doesn't understand. He says things like "I think books call this x but I
don't know. I call it y." Well maybe the guy shoulda read some of those books.
I'm all for some new way of looking at things but if you're talking
about, for instance, a new way to look at dominant function then say
"This is a new way to use the term dominant function" or something to
that effect. Or call it something else. If you are going to use the
terms of tradional theory then you should understand the terms you are
using. That's all I am saying. If you're going to make up your own
theory then use your own freaking terms.
The stuff in that zip file, at best, is just the regular shit we all
know, poorly organized and poorly presented and, at worst, it is
dangerous bullshit. Dangerous because if a novice reads that stuff and
assumes that it is the normal way that a trained musician talks about
these topics he will be seen as an uneducated oaf by most other
professional musicians he discusses these things with.
> I've had the tract for a
> couple of years and that's verbatim. What's more, it's nothing new, just
> properly, even elegantly organized for once.
Well if we're talking about the same documents then you and I have
different meanings for those terms, "elegant" and "organized", too.
> If you look over your own endless sea of posts here, you'll find several over
> the years where you were individually in agreement with every tenet laid out in
> that post.
For the most part yes. But I am not presenting any new theory that I've
invented or making up any new meanings for well understood terms. All I
am doing is propagating the stuff that is presented at jazz colleges and
conservatories across the world and has been for some time now. I just
present standard fare in the standard way. If you disagree with those
theories then fine. But you won't convince me of your point unless I
know that you actually understand the thing you are disagreeing about.
> Incidentally, the G triad exists in a four note chordal system as more than one
> identity. Over E it is an Emi7 and is a substitute for the tonic. With an
> added F, it becomes a dominant. The difference is the presence or absence of F
> QED. That isn't new or old, it's just there. Deal with it or don't.
The G triad can be used in all sorts of ways in all sorts of harmonic
systems. In the tonal system of major and minor keys it can and has
functioned as a dominant chord for approximately 500 years now with or
without the presence of any freaking F. You deal with it.
Again, show me a progression to a standard tune that falls apart
harmonically when the chords are played in their triadic form without
7ths.
You guys don't understand where 7ths came from, how they evolved and how
they affect the texture that we know as tonality. They started out as
passing tones. They are just decoration. The phenomenon of key and
harmonic progression was invented without them and survives quite nicely
when they are not present.
If you want to look at some form of music that is not based on the
major-minor system of tonality, unlike the standard jazz repertoire
which is, then fine, but you won't be dealing with music in which a
deries of 7th chords is used much at all.
> How many standards do you actually play using three note chords?
Not many. BUT I COULD. And the essential harmony would survive. That's
the point. Geez.
> Doc was
> talking about reality and jazz, but maybe that distinction was overlooked - I
> know firsthand that you don't read replies too carefully.
Doc is just talking slang as far as I'm concerned. I read that much. I'm
talking a little bit more close to the Queen's English.
> I get the impression that you think you've already learned all there is to
> know.
Well I have just made several posts over the last few weeks that state a
completely opposite sentiment.
I do however appear to know and understand a lot more traditional
theory, as it is taught by scholars (not that I myself am a shcolar by
any stretch), than most of the folks I have encountered around this news
group. When I go to rec.music.theory I get my ass kicked regularly.
There are people who REALLY know their shit there, inside out, from
prehistory to now.
> Just how does a new idea come to you, and more importantly, when?
That's impossible to describe. Sorry.
> I've
> been reading you rehash the same old same old for almost three years now.
If and when people stop asking the same old questions I'll stop
presenting the same old answers. If you think YOU know everything then
YOU don't have to read it.
> If
> you like Linc's playing open your mind as to how he does it. It'll give you
> more to analyze and write about here.
There is no clue as to how Linc played what he plays in that zip file.
It's just a poorly presented version of standard fare as far as I can see.
Doc
1-2-3-4-5-6-7 = Ionian Spacing
1-2-3-4-#5-6-7 = Harmonic Minor Spacing
#1-2-3-4-5-6-7 = Melodic Minor Spacing
1-2-3-4-5-b6-7 = Harmonic Major Spacing
Now go home and play these scales in any key you want, in any configuration
of notes, chords, or arpeggios resolving one of the scales into the one of
the other. DON'T Pay attention to all the names people call them, because
name don't mean anything and there hard to remember. Call them anything you
want just pay attention to the spacing of the notes. Then I'll show what to
do with them. - (Quote from one of the hundreds ideas that Linc C had)
There 3 Years of Berklee all on 1 page. If this isn't a brilliant what is?
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D798755...@nowhere.net...
Joey Goldstein
Doc wrote:
>
> Here Joey see if you can under stand this
>
> 1-2-3-4-5-6-7 = Ionian Spacing
>
> 1-2-3-4-#5-6-7 = Harmonic Minor Spacing
>
> #1-2-3-4-5-6-7 = Melodic Minor Spacing
>
> 1-2-3-4-5-b6-7 = Harmonic Major Spacing
Well you conveniently omitted the word "spacing" from your on line
documents. That's quite a bit clearer.
Still, as far as I can see neither you nor Linc has shown why it is
usefull to always visualize these scales starting on those notes.
What's so special about C in the normal A harmonic minor scale? In tonal
music (jazz included), in minor keys, where this scale is used, chords
built on bIII are usually major tiads, only rarely are they bIIImaj7#5 chords.
What's so special about thinking of C# as being the 1st tone of D
melodic minor? Is C#m7b5 some sort of special tonic sound now in the key
of C major? Why use the D mel min scale and C#? Why not use Bb mel min
and C, or A mel min and C, or whatever? Why doesn't he look at the harm
minor spacing the same way, starting on #1 (so D harmonic minor starts
on C#)?
He appears to be hinting that there is some special relationship between
the tonic of a key, the key of C major here, and the D mel min scale but
he has not said what this relationship is.
George Russel is another jazz theorist whose chord-scale system always
started on the same tone but he backs his system up with scholarly study
and rational logic.
> Now go home and play these scales in any key you want, in any configuration
> of notes, chords,
I've been playing those scales for years. There is nothing new here
except perhaps the idea of always visualizing them starting on C or C#.
And the reasons for this odd idea have not been given.
> or arpeggios resolving one of the scales into the one of
> the other.
Well that makes no sense to me so you'll have to clarify.
> DON'T Pay attention to all the names people call them, because
> name don't mean anything and there hard to remember.
People give names to things like scale IN ORDER to be able to remember them.
> Call them anything you
> want just pay attention to the spacing of the notes. Then I'll show what to
> do with them. - (Quote from one of the hundreds ideas that Linc C had)
>
> There 3 Years of Berklee all on 1 page.
Yeah? Well go to Berklee for 3 years first. Then maybe i'll listen to
you telling me what it's like at a school like that.
> If this isn't a brilliant what is?
Er....Ummmmm .... What can I say to that?
Doc
> Well you conveniently omitted the word "spacing" from your on line
> documents
attention to the spacing between the tones". and "Chapter 2 will be on the
Harmonic and Melodic Minor spacing and how they are used with the Ionian
spacing in today's music". There are at least 3 or 4 other places that
mention hoe important the spacings are.---Guess you did not even read the
thing that you are passing judgment on.
> > > Melodic Minor Scale C#*D-E*F-G-A-B-C#(octave) (when playing up)
> > > C#*D-E*F-G-Ab-B-C# (when playing down)"
You win on this one it's a typo sorry I'll have to fix that
> He appears to be hinting that there is some special relationship between
> the tonic of a key, the key of C major here, and the D mel min scale but
> he has not said what this relationship is.
C,D,E,F,G,A,B,C
C#,D,E,F,G,A,B,C#
Isn't it odvious one scale has a C# and the other has a C all the rest of
the notes are the same--even my ten year old student can see that.
> Yeah? Well go to Berklee for 3 years first. Then maybe i'll listen to
> you telling me what it's like at a school like that.
No thanks I already know what it's like
E-mail from one of my students (with his permission)---YO! Doc I have
graduated from Berklee with straight As in theory in all but one subject. In
composition I got a B. I got the highest marks in the classes on the rest. I
would not have been able to do this without your vast music knolage and your
presentation and views of the LC stuff. The hardest thing for me to do in
the 3 years that I was here was to learn the names and terminology they want
for all of this stuff. It's just names and senseless dribble. Most of the
people in the class still don't understand it and I'm helping as many as I
can. I don't know how anybody can do it the way they teach it. You will get
a kick out of their annalist of a song. It looks like something from outer
space with displaced resolutions, sub dominants the rest of the bull shit
they make you learn that you don't need and will never use. I will be home
Sep 22 and want to get together with you. I'll bring some of this stuff over
so we can get a good laugh.
Cory
--I don't want to discourage any of the readers in this ng if they want to
go to a music school. I think if you are going into a career where you need
credits and degrees you must by all means get them. Just keep an open mind
when it comes to Jazz and harmonization. There are a lot of harmony theorys
out there and no matter which one you like as long as you understand them
they all end up in the same place. I vote for the one that is stright ahead
and to the point without a lot of pached up bull in there so it is easy to
understsnd and apply. We all know or should know that a music degree is not
needed to be a great musician and I hope a few of the readers in this ng
will get something from some of these harmony concepts. From the private
e-mails that I got from some you Thanks! and I will help you as much as I
can.
OK I'm done on this subject Joey shall we discuss some of Dave Leibmans
theory idias now?
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D7A23B4...@nowhere.net...
Joey Goldstein
Doc wrote:
>
> Joey wrote
> > Well you conveniently omitted the word "spacing" from your on line
> > documents
> My on line notes say-"One of the most important things is to pay close
> attention to the spacing between the tones". and "Chapter 2 will be on the
> Harmonic and Melodic Minor spacing and how they are used with the Ionian
> spacing in today's music". There are at least 3 or 4 other places that
> mention hoe important the spacings are.---Guess you did not even read the
> thing that you are passing judgment on.
Sure, you mention spacing. But you don't mention:
"Harmonic Minor Scale Spacing" when you introduce the harmonic minor
scale.
What you actually say is:
"The Harmonic Minor Scale is identical to the Ionian scale except it has
a #5 instead of a 5."
And this is just plain wrong not to mention an extremely poor way to
present the things you are trying to present.
Guess you haven't even read your own writings.
> > > > Melodic Minor Scale C#*D-E*F-G-A-B-C#(octave) (when playing up)
> > > > C#*D-E*F-G-Ab-B-C# (when playing down)"
> You win on this one it's a typo sorry I'll have to fix that
>
> > He appears to be hinting that there is some special relationship between
> > the tonic of a key, the key of C major here, and the D mel min scale but
> > he has not said what this relationship is.
>
> C,D,E,F,G,A,B,C
> C#,D,E,F,G,A,B,C#
>
> Isn't it odvious one scale has a C# and the other has a C all the rest of
> the notes are the same--even my ten year old student can see that.
Sure that's obvious. But what does that *mean* for music making?
If I'm in the key of C major why is it good to think of D jazz minor as
starting on C#? Or is this just supposed to be some sort of a lazy man's
a scale spelling shortcut because having to build a scale off of D is
too much work? Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, when a trained
musician talks to another musician about the melodic minor scale he is
talking about 1 2 b3 4 5 6 7 not #1 2 3 4 5 6 7.
> > Yeah? Well go to Berklee for 3 years first. Then maybe i'll listen to
> > you telling me what it's like at a school like that.
>
> No thanks I already know what it's like
Sure you do.
> E-mail from one of my students (with his permission)---YO! Doc I have
> graduated from Berklee with straight As in theory in all but one subject. In
> composition I got a B. I got the highest marks in the classes on the rest. I
> would not have been able to do this without your vast music knolage and your
> presentation and views of the LC stuff. The hardest thing for me to do in
> the 3 years that I was here was to learn the names and terminology they want
> for all of this stuff.
Because you had already polluted his mind with your own non-standard
meanings for these terms?
> It's just names and senseless dribble. Most of the
> people in the class still don't understand it and I'm helping as many as I
> can. I don't know how anybody can do it the way they teach it. You will get
> a kick out of their annalist of a song. It looks like something from outer
> space with displaced resolutions, sub dominants the rest of the bull shit
> they make you learn that you don't need and will never use. I will be home
> Sep 22 and want to get together with you. I'll bring some of this stuff over
> so we can get a good laugh.
I'm having a good laugh now myself.
> Cory
>
> --I don't want to discourage any of the readers in this ng if they want to
> go to a music school. I think if you are going into a career where you need
> credits and degrees you must by all means get them. Just keep an open mind
> when it comes to Jazz and harmonization. There are a lot of harmony theorys
> out there and no matter which one you like as long as you understand them
> they all end up in the same place. I vote for the one that is stright ahead
> and to the point without a lot of pached up bull in there so it is easy to
> understsnd and apply. We all know or should know that a music degree is not
> needed to be a great musician and I hope a few of the readers in this ng
> will get something from some of these harmony concepts.
You seem to think that there is some evil music establishment pulling
the wool over everyone's eyes, much like Albert Silverman does. Well
until you go to a place like that YOURSELF and actually learn the things
that they are teaching there YOU will never know what it is that you are
criticizing. If you want to remain ignorant of the material that is
taught at a place like Berklee, or at a conservatory, ostensibly because
you think that you don't need it for your own music making, then fine.
But stop bashing these ideas that you clearly don't know anything about.
The people writing the material for these courses are serious dudes with
a big responsibility and they have done their homework.
> From the private
> e-mails that I got from some you Thanks! and I will help you as much as I
> can.
> OK I'm done on this subject Joey shall we discuss some of Dave Leibmans
> theory idias now?
Is that supposed to be some sort of a challenge? A theory shoot-out?
What do you want to know about Liebman's stuff? I have his book on
chromatic jazz harmony and melody right here. That is the only stuff he
has written that I have been exposed to. I think I understand it pretty
well. Do you? I don't see any of the LC stuff in there. Where is it? And
you can bet your ass that Liebman has studied traditional harmonic
theory and that HE understands it. If I were discussing dominant
function with him I would listen to what *he* was saying.
--
Joey Goldstein
Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> Doc wrote:
> >
> > Joey wrote
> > >
> > OK I'm done on this subject Joey shall we discuss some of Dave Leibmans
> > theory idias now?
>
> Is that supposed to be some sort of a challenge? A theory shoot-out?
> What do you want to know about Liebman's stuff? I have his book on
> chromatic jazz harmony and melody right here. That is the only stuff he
> has written that I have been exposed to.
Actually that's not entirely an accurate representation of my exposure
to Liebman's ideas on harmony.....
In my 3rd year at Berklee, my jazz harmony teacher was a guy named Hal
Grossman, who happens to be saxman Steve Grossman's brother, who happens
to be very close friends with Dave Liebman. Steve and Dave used to come
into the class farily frequently to vist Hal and while two of them would
go off into the bathroom (to do what? ... I can only guess <g>) the
remaining guy would stay and teach the class. So some of the stuff I am
spouting off here probably comes directly from Liebman himself. I think
if Dave thought the Berklee harmony course was all bullshit he would
have said so. It was a pretty loose class and people were free to
express all sorts of opinions.
Doc
> meanings for these terms?
never understand it.
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D7A4680...@nowhere.net...
Jim Kroger
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>much like Albert Silverman .... the material that is
>taught at a place like Berklee.......
Al Silverman teaches at Berklee?
Jim
--
Watch out for spam block
List of 30 online jazz guitar instruction websites:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jimkk/jazzfast.html
"Ars longa, vita brevis"
Joey Goldstein
Jim Kroger wrote:
>
> On Sat, 07 Sep 2002 14:34:07 -0400, Joey Goldstein
> <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> >much like Albert Silverman .... the material that is
> >taught at a place like Berklee.......
>
> Al Silverman teaches at Berklee?
Nice job of selective quoting Jim. My hat's off to you. <g>
> Jim
>
> --
> Watch out for spam block
>
> List of 30 online jazz guitar instruction websites:
> http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jimkk/jazzfast.html
>
> "Ars longa, vita brevis"
--
Joey Goldstein
Doc wrote:
>
> > Because you had already polluted his mind with your own non-standard
> > meanings for these terms?
> Joey this is so far out there I'm not even going to respond. You would
> never understand it.
> Doc
Suit yourself. But anytime you want to jump in here and discuss the
ideas implicit in what Linc was teaching you and straighten me out I
wish you'd go for it.
If I am correct in assessing the ideas at the core of your online
paraphrasing of Linc Chamberlain's stuff then he was advocating
something like a system of tonal organization, a system that I am
noticing has some strong similarites with George Russell's Lydian
Chromatic Concept Of Tonal Organization. But I could be wrong.
By organizing his scales and chords the way he did, Linc seems to be
making a case for a harmonic system of what can be termed like-function
chordal substitutions. But his delineation of harmonic function is
somewhat simpler than the traditional model in that there are only two
chordal functions in a "key", namely resolved (chords that do not
contain scale degree 4) and unresolved (chords that do contain scale
degree 4) rather than the 3 harmonic functions of traditional theory
(tonic, dominant and subdominant).
Therefore Linc's conception about what the term "key" actually means is
much broader than the traditional model which is firmly based in the
major-minor key system of classical music from the common practice
period. Linc's looser version of the idea of key leads to a type of
harmony that a classically trained musician or theorist might call pan
tonality, i.e. several keys existing side by side, occasionally with one
key having primacy but often not.
He suggests a system of 4 scales that are used to outline the "key" of C
major and/or A minor as follows. (Some of Linc's scale names are
different than mine. I am sticking to standard scale names here.):
Major Scale Spacing
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1
C D E F G A B C
Harmonic Minor Scale Spacing
1 2 3 4 #5 6 7 1
C D E F G# A B C
This is the C Ionian Augmented scale, the 3rd mode of A harmonic minor.
Melodic Minor Spacing
#1 2 3 4 5 6 7 #1
C# D E F G A B C#
This is the C# SuperLocrian scale, the 7th mode of D melodic minor.
Harmonic Major Spacing
1 2 3 4 5 b6 7 1
C D E F G Ab B C
From these four scales we get the following four 7th chords built on I
(and #I), all of which are deemd "resolved" in the "key" of C major or
in the "key" of A minor.
Cmaj7, Cmaj7#5, C#m7b5 and Cmaj7 again.
From these four scales we get the following four 7th chords built on II,
all of which are deemd "unresolved" in the "keys" of C major and A minor
because they all contain the tone F (scale degree 4 of the key).
Dm7, Dm7, Dm(maj7) and Dm7b5
From these four scales we get the following four 7th chords built on
III, all of which are deemd "resolved".
Em7, E7, Em7 and Em7
We get the following four 7th chords built on IV, all of which are deemd "unresolved".
Fmaj7, Fmaj7, Fmaj7#5 and Fm(maj7)
We get the following four 7th chords built on V, all of which are deemd "unresolved".
G7, G#dim7, G7 and G7
We get the following four 7th chords built on VI, all of which are deemd "resolved".
Am7, Am(maj7), A7 and Abmaj7#5
And we get the following four 7th chords built on VII, all of which are
deemd "unresolved".
Bm7b5, Bm7b5, Bm7b5 and Bdim7
He seems to be, then, advocating a harmonic system where the various
"resolved" chords (built on I, #I, III and VI) are all more or less
interchangeable and where the various "unresolved" chords (built on II,
IV, V and VII) are likewise interchangeable.
The highly tonal progression
Cmaj7 Am7 |Dm7 G7 |
can therefore become
Cmaj7#5 Am(maj7) |Dm7 G#dim7 |
or
C#m7b5 A7 |Dm(maj7) G7 |
or
Cmaj7 Abmaj7#5 |Dm7b5 G7 |
There are other varieties of subs available too when the four scales are
mixed up within the same progression.
Now I can hear that these types of subs have a certain operative logic
in their sound but it is a fairly "out" sound, one not normally
associated with the sound of major-minor tonality. It is highly likely
that there is something I am not getting here though.
But when I listen to that clip of Linc's playing, Virgo, it sound's like
he may very well be treating the idea of "key" with these types of very
broad, unusual, "out", strokes. It sounds quite tonal at times but then
easily slips into a type of pan tonality, even poly-tonality.
The way Barry Harris uses neighbour tones in the chords he derives from
the bebop scales can also yield a similar kind of controlled, not quite
poly-tonal, "outness".
In George Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept he too has a system of
scales, all with the same tonic, and he makes similar associations
between chords at various points along the scale degrees.
His first two scales are directly isomorphic to 2 of Linc's scales.
F Lydian
1 2 3 #4 5 6 7 1
F G A B C D E F
This is the same as Linc's "Major Scale Spacing" but Linc starts on C.
F Lydian Augmenetd
F G A B C# D E F
1 2 3 #4 #5 6 7 1
This is the same as Linc's "Melodic Minor Scale Spacing" but Linc starts
on C#.
There are no corollaries for Linc's "Harm Min Spacing" and "Harm Maj
Spacing" scales though in Russell's concept.
And Russell has one other 7 tone scale that he includes in his system,
the Lydian Diminished Scale, that Chamberlain does not use:
1 2 b3 #4 5 6 7 1
F G Ab B C D E F
[From what I have seen though and from what I understand of
Chamberlain's concept it might make more sense and be easier to
understand if he too started all four of his scales on F.]
Russell also has 2 octotonic diminished scales and 1 whole tone scale in
his system of tonal organization, all of which Chamberlain also mentions
in the material of his that I have seen, but in a different way from Russell.
Russell makes no claims or observations about harmonic function though
in his book. His is more a methodology for assigning a chord-scale to a
chord than it is about chord substitution possibilities. But the
possibilities for some types of chord substitution are an obvious
artifact of the possibilities for the chord-scales.
The two systems are therefore quite different. But it is interesting to
me to see the overlaying of the Lydian and Lydian augmented scales in
pretty much the exact same fashion in both systems.
Joey Goldstein
I think the following chart showing the chords from the four scales at
the various scale degrees might be helpful in illustrating the possible
substitutions I think he is advocating:
MSS = major scale spacing
HmS = harmonic minor spacing
JmS = jazz minor spacing
HMS = harmonic major spacing
R = resolved (harmonic function)
U = unresolved
I(R) II(U) III(R) IV(U) V(U) VI(R) VII(U)
MSS Cmaj7 Dm7 Em7 Fmaj7 G7 Am7 Bm7b5
HmS Cmaj7#5 Dm7 E7 Fmaj7 G#dim7 Am(maj7) Bm7b5
JmS C#m7b5 Dm(maj7) Em7 Fmaj7#5 G7 A7 Bm7b5
HMS Cmaj7 Dm7b5 Em7 Fm(maj7) G7 Abmaj7#5 Bdim7
Doc
abuse me let alone criticize Linc C when he is not here to defend himself. I
may not be good with words but I know how to teach music harmony and how to
play the guitar. We have the same goals but our approach is vastly
different. You may think that I don't know any thing about the commonly
taught music theory but I know where it's coming from and have for 40 years.
I have read a lot of books and studied with classical teachers also. If your
serious about talking theory and think we can do it with out getting into a
shit slinging contest, I'm all for it.
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D7AACAE...@nowhere.net...
>
>
> Doc wrote:
> >
> > > Because you had already polluted his mind with your own non-standard
> > > meanings for these terms?
> > Joey this is so far out there I'm not even going to respond. You would
> > never understand it.
> > Doc
>
> Suit yourself. But anytime you want to jump in here and discuss the
> ideas implicit in what Linc was teaching you and straighten me out I
> wish you'd go for it.
>
> If I am correct in assessing the ideas at the core of your online
> paraphrasing of Linc Chamberlain's stuff then he was advocating
> something like a system of tonal organization, a system that I am
> noticing has some strong similarites with George Russell's Lydian
> Chromatic Concept Of Tonal Organization. But I could be wrong.
>
> By organizing his scales and chords the way he did, Linc seems to be
> making a case for a harmonic system of what can be termed like-function
> chordal substitutions. But his delineation of harmonic function is
> somewhat simpler than the traditional model in that there are only two
> chordal functions in a "key", namely resolved (chords that do not
> contain scale degree 4) and unresolved (chords that do contain scale
> degree 4) rather than the 3 harmonic functions of traditional theory
> (tonic, dominant and subdominant).
He also included the the minor key as you call it, as a function of the 1.
Ex You call a Bmi7b5-E7-Ami7 a 2-5-1 of the minor key he calls it a
7-Alt3(or #5 of key)-6 of the Ionian scale. Or 1-Alt6 (#1 of key)-2
>
> Therefore Linc's conception about what the term "key" actually means is
> much broader than the traditional model which is firmly based in the
> major-minor key system of classical music from the common practice
> period. Linc's looser version of the idea of key leads to a type of
> harmony that a classically trained musician or theorist might call pan
> tonality, i.e. several keys existing side by side, occasionally with one
> key having primacy but often not.
And how 1 key effects another by resolving to it
>
> He suggests a system of 4 scales that are used to outline the "key" of C
> major and/or A minor as follows. (Some of Linc's scale names are
> different than mine. I am sticking to standard scale names here.):
He did not use many names he felt they are irrelevant and they are. He just
used them as references to parallel some of the books. He said call them any
thing you want it does not change anything it's the note spacing that is the
boss. He used these 4 scales as a starting point because these are the
scales that are most popular and they are all 7 note scales and this is all
you can have without having 3 notes in a row.
This scale is the same spacing as a Harmonic Major comming from the 4
> [From what I have seen though and from what I understand of
> Chamberlain's concept it might make more sense and be easier to
> understand if he too started all four of his scales on F.]
He did it was just another way
> Russell also has 2 octotonic diminished scales and 1 whole tone scale in
> his system of tonal organization, all of which Chamberlain also mentions
> in the material of his that I have seen, but in a different way from
Russell.
Symmetrical scales can be different ball game but the resolutions are the
same. we don't see a stright whole tone scale contained in any of these
scales.
>
> Russell makes no claims or observations about harmonic function though
> in his book. His is more a methodology for assigning a chord-scale to a
> chord than it is about chord substitution possibilities. But the
> possibilities for some types of chord substitution are an obvious
> artifact of the possibilities for the chord-scales.
>
> The two systems are therefore quite different. But it is interesting to
> me to see the overlaying of the Lydian and Lydian augmented scales in
> pretty much the exact same fashion in both systems.
In the Lydian concept the Fmaj7,G7,Ami7,Bmi7b5,CMaj7,Dmi7,Emi7 are all
resolved FMaj7 any chord or line containing a Ab,Bb,Db,Eb,F are unresolved.
Stephan Patterson
<guitarm...@trimcrafters.com> wrote:
>The hardest thing for me to do in
>the 3 years that I was here was to learn the names and terminology they want
>for all of this stuff. It's just names and senseless dribble.
Doc,
With all due respect to you and your Berkeley-graduate former student,
the "names and terminology they want" are those the rest of the music
world use when music theory is discussed. It is not "senseless
dribble", it is the right terminology being taught all over the world
to musicians so they can understand each other when they discuss
music. I understand that you don't need to know the right word for a
concept to be able to incorporate it in your playing, but if you're
going to have a meaningful discussion with other musicians (and
possibly learn something in the process), it helps.
Stephan Patterson
Doc
Berkeley-graduate former student,
> the "names and terminology they want" are those the rest of the music
> world use when music theory is discussed. It is not "senseless
> dribble", it is the right terminology being taught all over the world
> to musicians so they can understand each other when they discuss
> music. I understand that you don't need to know the right word for a
> concept to be able to incorporate it in your playing, but if you're
> going to have a meaningful discussion with other musicians (and
> possibly learn something in the process), it helps".
This is not the terminology that the great Jazz players I have played with
use, in fact most of them wouldn't know what you were talking about. A lot
of the great players that I like have no collage music education. -- *In my
opinion* The problem with the Berklee method (I should call it the old or
traditional method) is all the patched up theory and words that they have
been imposed on a relatively simple thing like dividing 12 tones into
harmony combinations. This can very easily done with numbers and math. The
words are needless. Words may represent certain aspects of harmony theory
but as you can see by most of the students posts in just this ng that every
one is struggling to get the right terminology for some chord progression
when it is just an Ionian 2-5 change. They just don't understand the
simplicity because of the words. This entire thread is about whether it is a
sub dom or a suspended something when it in all harmonic reality the same
chord with the same function - going to the 1. If we say 2 unresolved sounds
going to an resolved sound and get rid of all the words, now we can
understand. The views on harmony theory are changing due to guys like
Chamberland, Leibman and others. The schools should offer this. When I have
a student like Cory that can take 6 mo of lessons from me and can see and
understand all the spacings in all of the 12 tone music system, he needs
nothing else because the only thing he has to do is apply it which can take
a life time. He then goes to music school because he wants a degree so he
can be successful in life. The only thing he had to do is to apply what he
already knew to their terminology which he found to be useless in most
instances. The first 2 years he was there he was bored silly with his theory
classes because he knew as much or more about harmony theory than most of
the instructors did. This cost him $80,000 so if he wants to call it dribble
he can, and I agree. Talk numbers not names, numbers can't change (Linc
Chamberland quote) I Think some of the composition and ear training courses
are good and I'm not knocking Berklee just the music theory system in
general.
--
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
"Stephan Patterson" <stephan....@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:6hemnuggriv0kjkbn...@4ax.com...
Joey Goldstein
Doc wrote:
>
> I'll talk theory with anyone but I won't allow you or anyone to verbally
> abuse me
Well I'll try to avoid doing that if you do me the same courtesy.
> let alone criticize Linc C when he is not here to defend himself.
Well I may ctiricise Linc but I will not be abusing his memory. If I can
not evealuate his ideas there is no reason to be discussing them.
> I
> may not be good with words but I know how to teach music harmony and how to
> play the guitar. We have the same goals but our approach is vastly
> different.
> You may think that I don't know any thing about the commonly
> taught music theory but I know where it's coming from and have for 40 years.
With all due respect Doc, knowing where it's coming from (whatever that
means) is not the same thing as knowing it.
> I have read a lot of books and studied with classical teachers also. If your
> serious about talking theory and think we can do it with out getting into a
> shit slinging contest, I'm all for it.
Let's give it a whirl.
Well now you may have lost me. I thought your concept of "resolving" was
based on a single scale system (that you are calling a "key") and that
chords that contained the 4th degree of that scale-system had a tendency
to resolve into chords that do not have S4. Now you are saying that
"keys" resolve into other keys as well?
In the first place, I hope you realize that the concepts that you are
referring to when you use the word "key" are similar to, yet quite
different from, the tradional meaning of the word. If I understand your
meaning it is a much broader type of a tonal center than what is meant
tradionally. For example: You have just said, I think, that you think of
the key of A minor as being some sort of a subset of the key of C major.
Tradionally speaking, they are related yet separate keys. Another
example: Tradionally speaking, in the C, many of the chords found in the
D mel min scale, like C#m7b5, A7, Fmaj7#5, especially if they are being
used as substitutes for the regular chords on I VI and IV, are an
indication that a modulation has occured. It might be an extremely brief
modulation but a modulation nonetheless because those chords are not a
part of the tonal set that defines the key of C major. (Of course VI7
might be functioning as a secondary dominant though and would "resolve",
the tradional meaning here, to Dm, a chord with F in it. And secondary
keys are a form of modulation, secondary or not.)
I take then your meaning of "key" to be the entire scale system of 4
scales built on a single tonic and that a change of key involves a
change of tonic. Yes/No?
If yes, then how would a key based on another tonic, say G, tend to
resolve? To a key base on C?
> > He suggests a system of 4 scales that are used to outline the "key" of C
> > major and/or A minor as follows. (Some of Linc's scale names are
> > different than mine. I am sticking to standard scale names here.):
> He did not use many names he felt they are irrelevant and they are. He just
> used them as references to parallel some of the books. He said call them any
> thing you want it does not change anything it's the note spacing that is the
> boss.
Good scale names are important to me for at least two reasons:
1. A good scale name reminds me of the intervallic construction of that
scale. Eg. Lydian b7.
2. A scale name that is indicative of the intervallic construction of a
scale makes it easier to discuss that scale with another musician who
may not be familiar with it.
I'm all for standardization of scale names, so that there is less
confusion when musicians get together and discuss these things. But
let's face it, there is no central authority of the musical community
capable of dictating standard names to us all. Still, over the years,
many names have become standard in the communities in which I am
involved. I use those names so that I will be well understood by those people.
> He used these 4 scales as a starting point because these are the
> scales that are most popular and they are all 7 note scales and this is all
> you can have without having 3 notes in a row.
Right. The proportions of a 7 tone scale with no 2 consecutive
semi-tones has proven it's worth for tonal music making over the
centruies. There are only 4 of these scales possible in the 12 tone
system, I believe. These are them.
Oh geez. I shoulda caught that. That's pretty obvious yes. Sorry.
> > [From what I have seen though and from what I understand of
> > Chamberlain's concept it might make more sense and be easier to
> > understand if he too started all four of his scales on F.]
>
> He did it was just another way
Ah. So the three main scales of the Russell concept, lydian, lyd aug and
lyd dim are all represented in Chamberlain's "system" in a very similar way.
Do you know if Linc was aware of Russell's ideas at all?
> > Russell also has 2 octotonic diminished scales and 1 whole tone scale in
> > his system of tonal organization, all of which Chamberlain also mentions
> > in the material of his that I have seen, but in a different way from
> Russell.
> Symmetrical scales can be different ball game but the resolutions are the
> same. we don't see a stright whole tone scale contained in any of these
> scales.
> >
> > Russell makes no claims or observations about harmonic function though
> > in his book. His is more a methodology for assigning a chord-scale to a
> > chord than it is about chord substitution possibilities. But the
> > possibilities for some types of chord substitution are an obvious
> > artifact of the possibilities for the chord-scales.
> >
> > The two systems are therefore quite different. But it is interesting to
> > me to see the overlaying of the Lydian and Lydian augmented scales in
> > pretty much the exact same fashion in both systems.
>
> In the Lydian concept the Fmaj7,G7,Ami7,Bmi7b5,CMaj7,Dmi7,Emi7 are all
> resolved FMaj7 any chord or line containing a Ab,Bb,Db,Eb,F are unresolved.
Well I don't see him phrasing it that way anywhere in his book. He does
not use those terms the way you and Linc do anyways. I don't think
anybody else does. That is an idea present in Linc's theory only, as far
as I can tell. And it is somewhat different than the traditional
classical major-minor key model which has 3 harmonic functions, not 2.
And the way I understand your "resolved-unresolved" dualism is that it
is a simple either-or proposition not a multi levelled series of
conditions like you are suggesting above for Russell. And of the other 2
scales in Russell's concept lyd aug has C#/Db and lyd dim has Ab/G# and
these scales are to be used on Fmaj7 as Imaj7 the ultimate "resolved" chord.
Doc
--
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D7B75D3...@nowhere.net...
> > You may think that I don't know any thing about the commonly
> > taught music theory but I know where it's coming from and have for 40
years.
>
> With all due respect Doc, knowing where it's coming from (whatever that
> means) is not the same thing as knowing it.
I know as much as I need to see the parallels so I can teach students that
came out of, or in collage.
Joey lets talk comparison of the Theorys with out conflicting words so we
can see whats going on
By key I mean Ex C, D, E, F, G, A, B we will call this Ionian
Within a key we know that there are 7 4 note primary chords - 1 off each
note
1 CMaj7, 2 Dmi7, 3 Emi7, 4 FMaj7, 5 G7, 6 Ami7, 7 Bmi7b5
The 1, 3, 6 have no 4s (Fs) in the 2, 4, 5, 7 all have Fs so we can make 2
different sound. Sounds with 4s and sounds without. So to control the key we
have to put the 4 in or out. We can call the sounds with 4s nresolved and
sounds with out 4s resolved. The 6 minor of key that you call the minor key
and it is (in this case the Ami7) Lincs theory is that it's just the 6 of
the key of C and is not look at it as being a different key, but is
incorporated in the Ionian key of C. The 6 used as a resolution just like
the 1 or the 3. Ex. CMaj7 (r)/Bmi7b5 (u) Ami7 (r). To Include the Harmonic
minor spacing Ionian #5 C,D,E,F,G#,A,B or 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 it could be CMaj7
(r)/E7 (u)/Am7 (r) or the the famous Bmi7(u)/E7(u)/Am7(r) would be a 7,
Alt3, 6 of key of C. The Bmib5/ E7 is now from the Ion #5 and resolves to
1,3,6 of the Ionian Key. In this case the Am7.
OK Joey lets see if we can agree on this before going deeper
Doc
Joey Goldstein
Doc wrote:
>
> --
> Doc
>
> http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:3D7B75D3...@nowhere.net...
>
> > > You may think that I don't know any thing about the commonly
> > > taught music theory but I know where it's coming from and have for 40
> years.
> >
> > With all due respect Doc, knowing where it's coming from (whatever that
> > means) is not the same thing as knowing it.
>
> I know as much as I need to see the parallels so I can teach students that
> came out of, or in collage.
>
> Joey lets talk comparison of the Theorys with out conflicting words so we
> can see whats going on
You mean let's use your words instead of the traditional ones. Sheesh.
> By key I mean Ex C, D, E, F, G, A, B we will call this Ionian
So by a major key you mean an Ionian scale? I hope you understand that,
tradionally speaking, there is a lot more to what is meant by "the key
of C major" than just an Ionian scale.
> Within a key we know that there are 7 4 note primary chords - 1 off each
> note
> 1 CMaj7, 2 Dmi7, 3 Emi7, 4 FMaj7, 5 G7, 6 Ami7, 7 Bmi7b5
> The 1, 3, 6 have no 4s (Fs) in the 2, 4, 5, 7 all have Fs so we can make 2
> different sound. Sounds with 4s and sounds without. So to control the key we
> have to put the 4 in or out. We can call the sounds with 4s nresolved and
> sounds with out 4s resolved.
Yes. I understand this much about your/Linc's system and have said so
several times now.
> The 6 minor of key that you call the minor key
> and it is (in this case the Ami7)
I hope you understand that, traditionally speaking, there is a lot more
to what is meant by "the key of A minor" than just an Am7 chord built
from the relative major or Ionian (as you seem to insist on calling it) scale.
> Lincs theory is that it's just the 6 of
> the key of C and is not look at it as being a different key, but is
> incorporated in the Ionian key of C.
Well I understand that this is what he says. But I don't hear it that
way, probably because I don't hear "keys" the way you and he are
describing them. I hear several keys simultaneously hinted at in Linc's
scale system.
> The 6 used as a resolution just like
> the 1 or the 3.
Yeah, I understand: Chords on 1 3 and 6 = "resolved". Chords on 2 4 5 7
= "unresolved".
> Ex. CMaj7 (r)/Bmi7b5 (u) Ami7 (r).
> To Include the Harmonic
> minor spacing Ionian #5 C,D,E,F,G#,A,B or 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 it could be CMaj7
> (r)/E7 (u)/Am7 (r) or the the famous Bmi7(u)/E7(u)/Am7(r)
> would be a 7,
> Alt3, 6 of key of C.
Why is E7 "unreolved"? It is built on 3 and it has no F in it?
Of course if you were looking at the "key of A minor" then D would be
scale degree 4 and your unresolve designation would make sens. But you
just said that the tradional key of A minor all relates back to the "LC
style key" of C with F as scale degree 4.
> The Bmib5/ E7 is now from the Ion #5 and resolves to
> 1,3,6 of the Ionian Key. In this case the Am7.
So E7 also resolves to Em7 and Cmaj7? Why doesn't E7 resolve to E7?
Well let's just say that I think I *may* (I'm not sure mind you) have a
better understanding of your words than you do of the traditional ones.
I wish you would consider using another word besides key though because
the word key has been meaning something similar yet soething quite
different from your meaning for some time now. If I were describing what
you are describing as "key" I probably would use the term "broad tonal
center" or something to that effect.
> OK Joey lets see if we can agree on this before going deeper
I can't agree to what you say above because I don't think of or hear
music in that way. I can argee that there are some non standard ideas in
there that are not without merit though. I really don't know what you
want me to say.
> Doc
Doc
--
Doc
http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3D7BD461...@nowhere.net...
>
>
> Doc wrote:
> >
> > --
> > Doc
> >
> > http://www.trimcrafters.com/drg.htm
>
> > By key I mean Ex C, D, E, F, G, A, B we will call this Ionian
>
> So by a major key you mean an Ionian scale? I hope you understand that,
> tradionally speaking, there is a lot more to what is meant by "the key
> of C major" than just an Ionian scale.
Lets call it a sound center I don't care
> > Within a key we know that there are 7 4 note primary chords - 1 off each
> > note
> > 1 CMaj7, 2 Dmi7, 3 Emi7, 4 FMaj7, 5 G7, 6 Ami7, 7 Bmi7b5
> > The 1, 3, 6 have no 4s (Fs) in the 2, 4, 5, 7 all have Fs so we can make
2
> > different sound. Sounds with 4s and sounds without. So to control the
key we
> > have to put the 4 in or out. We can call the sounds with 4s nresolved
and
> > sounds with out 4s resolved.
>
> Yes. I understand this much about your/Linc's system and have said so
> several times now.
>
> > The 6 minor of key that you call the minor key
> > and it is (in this case the Ami7)
>
> I hope you understand that, traditionally speaking, there is a lot more
> to what is meant by "the key of A minor" than just an Am7 chord built
> from the relative major or Ionian (as you seem to insist on calling it)
scale.
of coase
> > Lincs theory is that it's just the 6 of
> > the key of C and is not look at it as being a different key, but is
> > incorporated in the Ionian key of C.
>
> Well I understand that this is what he says. But I don't hear it that
> way, probably because I don't hear "keys" the way you and he are
> describing them. I hear several keys simultaneously hinted at in Linc's
> scale system.
> > The 6 used as a resolution just like
> > the 1 or the 3.
>
> Yeah, I understand: Chords on 1 3 and 6 = "resolved". Chords on 2 4 5 7
> = "unresolved".
>
> > Ex. CMaj7 (r)/Bmi7b5 (u) Ami7 (r).
>
> > To Include the Harmonic
> > minor spacing Ionian #5 C,D,E,F,G#,A,B or 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 it could be
CMaj7
> > (r)/E7 (u)/Am7 (r) or the the famous Bmi7(u)/E7(u)/Am7(r)
> > would be a 7,
> > Alt3, 6 of key of C.
>
> Why is E7 "unreolved"? It is built on 3 and it has no F in it?
Because the E7 has a G# in it and the G# is not in the Ionian scale of C
> Of course if you were looking at the "key of A minor" then D would be
> scale degree 4 and your unresolve designation would make sens. But you
> just said that the tradional key of A minor all relates back to the "LC
> style key" of C with F as scale degree 4.
The key of A minor is the same as the key of C Ionian from 6th degree
> > The Bmib5/ E7 is now from the Ion #5 and resolves to
> > 1,3,6 of the Ionian Key. In this case the Am7.
>
> So E7 also resolves to Em7 and Cmaj7? Why doesn't E7 resolve to E7?
Yes on the resolution you hear the #5 coming out of both chords. 3 to the b3
on the 3 (Emi7) and #5 to5 on the C. "Why doesn't E7 resolve to E7" You
can't resolve a chord to itself
> Well let's just say that I think I *may* (I'm not sure mind you) have a
> better understanding of your words than you do of the traditional ones.
> I wish you would consider using another word besides key though because
> the word key has been meaning something similar yet soething quite
> different from your meaning for some time now. If I were describing what
> you are describing as "key" I probably would use the term "broad tonal
> center" or something to that effect.
More word games? Every book I have ever seen or musician I have ever played
with or talked to calls a C Ionian scale the Key of C but if you want to
call it a "broad tonal center" its ok with me but I'm calling it the key of
C
> > OK Joey lets see if we can agree on this before going deeper
>
> I can't agree to what you say above because I don't think of or hear
> music in that way. I can argee that there are some non standard ideas in
> there that are not without merit though. I really don't know what you
> want me to say.
Seems to me that if we play a song like Autumn Leaves using either theory it
should sound the same. It should not make any difference how we think of it,
or what words we use to describe it. If you have a problem hearing music
harmonies from a different perspective then so be it you look at it your way
and I'll look at it mine. I don't think I could play music If I had to think
of all those words that have nothing to do with playing the guitar. If we
can't agree that a C Ionian scale is the key of C There is no sense in us
discussing this any farther
Joey Goldstein
So any chord, even if it's derived from that set of 4 scales, if it
contains a chromatic note that is not found in the Ionian scale, is also
"unresolved"? I think I missed that point in your writings if it is
indeed actually made anywhere. All I saw was the definition that scale
degree 4 needed to be present for a chord to be "unresolved". Well, I
suppose that makes a little bit more sense. Thanks.
> > Of course if you were looking at the "key of A minor" then D would be
> > scale degree 4 and your unresolve designation would make sens. But you
> > just said that the tradional key of A minor all relates back to the "LC
> > style key" of C with F as scale degree 4.
> The key of A minor is the same as the key of C Ionian from 6th degree
Yeah, right. More word games. Your words.
> > > The Bmib5/ E7 is now from the Ion #5 and resolves to
> > > 1,3,6 of the Ionian Key. In this case the Am7.
> >
> > So E7 also resolves to Em7 and Cmaj7? Why doesn't E7 resolve to E7?
>
> Yes on the resolution you hear the #5 coming out of both chords. 3 to the b3
> on the 3 (Emi7) and #5 to5 on the C. "Why doesn't E7 resolve to E7" You
> can't resolve a chord to itself
Yeah, I get it now.
> > Well let's just say that I think I *may* (I'm not sure mind you) have a
> > better understanding of your words than you do of the traditional ones.
> > I wish you would consider using another word besides key though because
> > the word key has been meaning something similar yet soething quite
> > different from your meaning for some time now. If I were describing what
> > you are describing as "key" I probably would use the term "broad tonal
> > center" or something to that effect.
>
> More word games? Every book I have ever seen or musician I have ever played
> with or talked to calls a C Ionian scale the Key of C but if you want to
> call it a "broad tonal center" its ok with me but I'm calling it the key of
> C
Well there are an awfull lot of musicians out there, very advanced ones
too, I'm afraid to say, who only have the sketchiest idea of what some
of these terms like "key" really do mean. It's amazing how many people
who use the term "diatonic" everyday, even profs at places like Berklee,
don't really know what it means. This is understandable though because
the history of these terms and the concepts behind them go way back into
Antiquity and a thorough understanding of their origins is really
required, I think, in order to grasp their real meanings. I am not a
scholar myself and have never claimed to have this type of deep
scholarly understanding of music theory. I've been investigating it a
bit. More than most of the folks here evidently.
A working pop/jazz musician today really needs just enough theoretical
background to negotiate whatever changes he has to play over. Much of
music theory is actually not very simple, although there are lots of
folks who would like you to believe it is. Music is deep, on many many
levels, one of them being the theoretical level. Most of the guys
playing jazz who I would deem as being more serious than the pack have
looked much more closely at the theoretical basis of music and tonality
than joe jobber out on a club date.
But you don't have to know how music was invented or how tonality
evolved to be able to use it. Music is out there now ... it's in the
air. We hear it everyday and it sinks into our subconscious where we can
draw upon it subconsciously. That's why music, as deep as it is, is not
just for the intellectuals of the human race. We all can draw upon its
powers. It resonates in all of us. But music, especially the Western
varieties of it, like the major-minor tonal system and 12 tet, did not
just arrive out of thin air. There are centuries and centuries of
serious philosophical and scientific enquiry that have brought us to the
point we are at today where some kid can go out and buy a fretted guitar
tuned in 12 tet and just start wanking away on power chords. It wasn't
always like this.
I look at the hierarchy in the scholarly world of music as being
somewhat like this:
The people writing the harmony courses at places like Berklee all have
their Masters Degrees in Harmony.
They studied courses written by people who have their Doctors Degrees in
Harmony at places like New England Conservatory.
The Doctors of Harmony all had to directly study the actual theories of
the actual theorists, probably in the original languages. People like
Pythagoras, Zarlino, Rameau, Hindemith and Shenker. Not easy reading btw.
The Doctors paraphrase what the theorists actually said so that they can
teach the Masters and the Masters paraphrase what the Doctors said so
they can try to get the lowly 1st year Bachelors candidate at Berklee
out on the bandsatnd as quickly as possible playing Autumn Leaves.
There's more than a little bit of broken telephone syndrome that goes on
when that kid with his Bachelors degree from Berklee goes out to teach
the next poor kid, taking guitar lessons at a music store, what he
"knows" about music.
And I don't really think this is a bad thing either. Because for an
aspiring jazz musician getting out on the bandstand and playing tunes by
ear is WAY more important than having a thorough undertanding of
Rameau's theory of what a root is and why chords with roots (some chords
don't really have roots btw) retain that root upon inversion, let alone
the ways by which Rameau's theories have been disproved. So even though
our budding jazz guy thinks he knows what a root is, he really doesn't.
But he knows how to use them which, for him, is really more important.
At some point though, he may start looking into all the huge gaping
holes in his understanding and start studying again. I know that's how
it worked for me.
If you ever do decide to expend the energty required and do some
research I think you'll be surprised. But I doubt that, from what you
have said here, this is something you will be doing in the near future.
> > > OK Joey lets see if we can agree on this before going deeper
> >
> > I can't agree to what you say above because I don't think of or hear
> > music in that way. I can argee that there are some non standard ideas in
> > there that are not without merit though. I really don't know what you
> > want me to say.
> Seems to me that if we play a song like Autumn Leaves using either theory it
> should sound the same. It should not make any difference how we think of it,
> or what words we use to describe it. If you have a problem hearing music
> harmonies from a different perspective then so be it you look at it your way
> and I'll look at it mine. I don't think I could play music If I had to think
> of all those words that have nothing to do with playing the guitar.
> If we
> can't agree that a C Ionian scale is the key of C There is no sense in us
> discussing this any farther
I guess not, because we can't.
Like you say about trad theory... I may not know all the details of
Linc's theory but I know enough.
Later